search results matching tag: jager

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (10)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (12)   

Can I have my rims back?

Fairbs says...

when you talk about getting in trouble, do you mean being called a racist and if not what kind of trouble?

I find it interesting that in the states, people often use an over represented prison population (relative to % of normal population) to indicate that 'those' people are bad. I think with yours and Drachen Jagers comments, you are actually coming from a place that is trying to find a solution to the discrepancy and looking at the underlying conditions that got people into where they are. I wish more people were like that. I also appreciate the insight into the Aboriginal population in Canada. It sounds pretty similar to what's going on in the States.

bcglorf said:

Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

tomi lahren from the blaze goes full blown snowflake

Briguy1960 says...

harlequinn I think jager was referring to the conservative mouthpieces and not the soldiers.
Many a soldier has had their politics change once they do serve
as well...

Ultimate Jägerbomb - Periodic Table of Videos

Serving Jägerbombs at Heidis Bier Bar

Serving Jägerbombs at Heidis Bier Bar

Serving Jägerbombs at Heidis Bier Bar

Morganth (Member Profile)

De Kleine Jager

the story of your decade in 3 paragraphs or less (History Talk Post)

peggedbea says...

i'll start.

10 years ago i was turning 17, drunk at inflatablevagina's house party off of hot damn and jager, i attempted to go on a cow hunt in the pasture behind her house with all my drunk boyfriends, we got scared, did a group piss around a tree, didnt find any cows. insulted her frankenstein-like boyfriend. got in a fist fight with a marine.

a few months later we (inflatablevagina and i) got kicked out of our first apartment for hosting a brothel, i ran away to denver with another friend, lived in a car for a while, spent a year drunk and stoned on a mountain top and traveling around the west having an existential crisis. somehow woke up one morning and realized i had somehow become the host house for interstate traveling ravers seeking parties in the rockies, hazy memories of debauchery flooded back into my brain, promptly moved back to texas, met a beautiful crazy man, had his baby, married him. had another one of his babies, he quit taking his meds and went really really really fucking crazy, left him for good, bought a house, took 8 years worth of xrays. had some personal trauma. had some personal triumph. embraced a broken heart, lived in poverty, got disowned at least 5 times, read alot of books. battled alcoholism internally and externally, philosophized with friends, experienced loss. experienced joy, became subject to gravity, reveled in inertia, lost momentum, was ruled entirely by emotion and impulse, embraced metaphor, was misunderstood, reunited, gave back, took, volunteered my time, attempted to mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally available, acted irrationally, behaved selfishly, felt whole sometimes, self-taught, fell in love, stepped in infatuation, gave birth. was a mommy. was a wife. was a tattoo supply delivery girl, was a barista. was a pizza maker. was an xray tech. was a massage therapist. was an insomniac. took in my crazy teenage cousin, dated an old friend, reconciled some family shit. lost my mind, traveled alot, lived simply and briefly caught a hold on inner peace, lost it, went crazy, quit taking xrays, went back to school, embraced the amazingness of unemployment. learned to bake, invented some recipes, had some ideas. ate some cookies. raised some amazing babies. raised some cool ass quirky talented kids, paid alot of bills. abandoned all laws of grammar. flirted with internet addiction, smoked 99999999 packs of cigarettes. and several hundreds bowls, made a sift talk post.

BOO! GAAAH! (Blog Entry by youdiejoe)

NetRunner says...

So for sources, you're basically you're holding up a website I've never heard of, and a few dictionary entries? Here I thought you'd at least produce a book written by a historian, or written by one of the National Republicans.

>> ^blankfist:
I know you like obtuse analogies to explain your point, so let me try one for you. If you moved out of your home and I moved in after you, am I now you? If I dress up in a Spider-Man costume, am I Spider-Man? If started a band and called it The Rolling, was Mick Jager the founder of my band?


Your first two analogies they don't apply -- they presuppose that the essence of the Democratic-Republican party left the party with the people who left to create their own party. You're back to saying it's a different party because the platform changed; even though the accounts I read usually point to a clash of personality, not ideology (more like Hillary vs. Obama rather than Humphrey vs. Muskie).

In your Rolling Stones analogy, it's more like if a band member left because he thought Jagger did something illicit to become lead singer, and that band member decided to start his own band named the Spinning Stones. Before, people used to refer to the Rolling Stones as "the Stones" before that split, but they now had to emphasize "Rolling" rather than "Stones" to avoid confusion. Eventually they just dropped the word "Stones" from their name. That's a new band, in your view, because the Rolling Stones "dissolved".

The name "Democratic-Republican party" is what historians have assigned as the name of the party; the members themselves often shortened it to just "Republican". Even in Martin Van Buren's book he frustratingly uses all three names (Democratic, Republican, Democratic-Republican) to refer to the party he's in, which just highlights how irresponsible it is to claim it's a wholly new, distinct party. Also, the fact that many sources disagree on the exact timing of the name change seems to imply it was a gradual, conversational change that wasn't formalized until well after the tussle in 1824.

This is in stark contrast to the National Republicans, who clearly left the party to create a new one.

>> ^blankfist:
Though, I do see that written history favors the idea of The Democratic Party coming out of the Democratic Republican Party more than it favors the National Republican Party coming out of it. I will concede that much. Still, it appears the Dem-Repub Party was properly dissolved, as I said.


Yawn, in other words, you realize you're wrong, but won't admit it because you're a pigfucker Jackass like Jackson. Not surprising.

To be fair, the more I read, the more it becomes clear that this argument is mostly a product of how very formal and factionalized political parties are now, compared to the early 1800's. I think parties back then were very loose, informal arrangements, and no one bothered trying to settle the question of "what is the name of our party?" until well after the whole Jackson/Adams drama had fully played out. Nowadays, you would need to figure such things out before getting your name on the ballot for elections.

I suspect the historians disagree about when the name "Democratic Party" was first used, because they can't agree on what event or document to pin it on. Political parties had not yet become legal entities with official names, so there was no official name change document on record.

I do think that the people who attended the "first" Democratic Party convention all felt that they were part of the party founded by Jefferson, and that the National Republicans and Whigs felt that they "didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, the Democratic-Republican party left me", and felt they were in more strict keeping with Jefferson's legacy.

However, I do think they would admit they had left the Democratic-Republican party to form their own, even if they feel it's what Jefferson himself would've done.

BOO! GAAAH! (Blog Entry by youdiejoe)

blankfist says...

First, I never said it disappeared into thin air. I get that there was a split, and people left that party. But, the party itself is gone. Just like the National Republican Party is gone. You don't hear people running as a Democratic Republican, do you?

Second, what straw man? The point of a straw man is to deceive. I wasn't trying to deceive you. Just because I don't dance for you when you ask me to dance, doesn't mean I created a straw man. I found your Virginia/West Virginia question to be needlessly verbose and irrelevant. Shall I entertain you like a good monkey and answer it?

Third, I'm not hung up on the "logo". I am trying my best to illustrate to you how that party was created as a separate party under Jackson. Period. Changing a logo or a mascot does not make a new party. Now you're just being childish.

From http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/D0123900.html:
"A political party in the United States that was opposed to the Federalist Party and was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792 and dissolved in 1828."

And why was it "dissolved" in 1828? What big party was formed in 1828? Hmmm. Oh, that's right, the Democratic Party! Want more examples? How about your own Answers.com site: http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-republican-party. They claim it was "dissolved" in 1828, as well.

How about here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Democratic-Republican_Party_United_States_-_History/id/4978465 "In the late 1820s, the party split into factions and dissolved. Along with some ex-Federalists, supporters of Andrew Jackson, led by Martin Van Buren, organized themselves into an offshoot of the Democratic-Republican Party called the Democratic Party. The link between today's Democratic Party and the party founded by Jefferson was a theme emphasized by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and other Democratic politicans throughout the years."

Though, I do see that written history favors the idea of The Democratic Party coming out of the Democratic Republican Party more than it favors the National Republican Party coming out of it. I will concede that much. Still, it appears the Dem-Repub Party was properly dissolved, as I said.

I know you like obtuse analogies to explain your point, so let me try one for you. If you moved out of your home and I moved in after you, am I now you? If I dress up in a Spider-Man costume, am I Spider-Man? If started a band and called it The Rolling, was Mick Jager the founder of my band?

Dave Attell - Jagermeister commercials

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon